Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Haripada Das vs State Of W.B. And Anr. on 3 March, 1998
In tank No. 5 oil remained below the tap level. It was not even stirred before being taken out of the tank for purchase by the Food Inspector. His further submission is that there is variance in the report of the public analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory which indicates that the samples were not collected in the proper manner. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1999 SC 1482 : 1999 Cri LJ 603 to submit that the samples were not drawn in the bottles which were clean and the acquittal was given in that case for want of such evidence. Said acquittal was maintained by the Supreme Court. His further submission is that there was no intention to sell the oil and as such offence under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act is not made out.
Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants' ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 March, 1970
6. The question whether the accused was having a guilty mind is not relevant for the decision of this case. It is trite law that in food offences strict liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Act but all the world over. Nothing more than the actusreas is needed where regulation of private activity in vulnerable areas like public health is intended. It is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizen in the definition of offences blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enactment or clear implication; but in Acts to deal with the grave social evils, or for ensuring public welfare, especially in offences against public health e.g. statutes regulating shortage or sale of articles of food and drink, sale of drugs, sale of controlled or scarce commodities, it is often found necessary in the larger public interest to provide imposition of liability without proof of guilty mind. The Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 2346 : 1971 Cri LJ 1556, Pyareli K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange AIR 1974 SC 228 : 1974 Cri LJ 213 and Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 1011 : 1989 Cri LJ 889 has taken the view aforesaid.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
1